Equivalent user experience and improved community augmented meta-analyses knowledge for a new version of a Plain Language Summary guideline

Plain Language Summaries (PLS) offer a promising solution to make meta-analytic psychological research more accessible for non-experts and laypeople. However, existing writing guidelines for this type of publication are seldom grounded in empirical studies. To address this and to test two versions of a new PLS guideline, we investigated the impact of PLSs of psychological meta-analyses on laypeoples’ PLS-related knowledge and their user experience (accessibility, understanding, empowerment). In a preregistered online-study, N = 2,041 German-speaking participants read two PLSs. We varied the inclusion of a disclaimer on PLS authorship, a statement on the causality of effects, additional information on community augmented meta-analyses (CAMA) and the PLS guideline version. Results partially confirmed our preregistered hypotheses: Participants answered knowledge items on CAMA more correctly when a PLS contained additional information on CAMA, and there were no user experience differences between the old and the new guideline versions. Unexpectedly, a priori hypotheses regarding improved knowledge via the use of a disclaimer and a causality statement were not confirmed. Reasons for this, as well as general aspects related to science communication via PLSs aimed at educating laypeople, are discussed.


Which psychotherapies best help adults with depression?
A review This summary refers to the 2013 review paper titled "Comparative Efficacy of Seven Psychotherapeutic Interventions for Patients with Depression: A Network Meta-Analysis" by Jürgen Barth and others.The researchers work at the University of Bern and two other institutes.

Good to know
The review presented to you as a summary today is a meta-analysis.Researchers who do a meta-analysis first look for the results of all the studies on a particular question (for example, "How well does a particular psychotherapy help?").Then they summarize the results of those studies.

Why do this? A meta-analysis has two goals:
1.The meta-analysis provides an overview of all the studies that have already examined that question.It describes who has already done research on a question (for example, who has already studied a particular type of psychotherapy).It also states the results of each study (for example, whether psychotherapy helped and how well it helped).
2. A Meta-analysis also provides a value that summarizes the results of all the studies.To do this, researchers take the individual results of all the studies they found and calculate an overall result.It is important here that the studies found on a topic are fairly similar.If the studies differ greatly, the calculated overall result of the meta-analysis becomes inaccurate.The calculated overall result provides the researchers with the answer to the question posed at the beginning (for example, "Across all studies, psychotherapy helps very well.").This overall result is much more meaningful than the results of the individual studies.

What was the goal of the review?
Background: Psychotherapy can help people with mental illness.Research has already found this out.There are different types of psychotherapies.For adults with mild to moderate depression, their helpfulness may vary.

Research question:
In this review, the researchers wanted to find out: What types of psychotherapy help adults with mild to moderate depression?

Key message of the review
All examined types of psychotherapy help adults with depression similarly well.They all help better than no psychotherapy at all.

How did the researchers proceed?
What studies did the researchers look for?
The researchers looked for studies that compared types of psychotherapies with each other or with no psychotherapy.The studies should examine how well each psychotherapy helps adults with depression.
What studies did the researchers find?
The researchers found a total of 198 studies from 1975 to 2012, the results of which they were able to combine into a meta-analysis.In total, these add up to results from 15,118 adults with depression.

What did the researchers do?
In each of the 198 studies, the researchers examined the effectiveness of various psychotherapies for adults with depression.They also looked at whether the treatment success of each type of psychotherapy was related to other characteristics of the people with depression.

What did the researchers examine?
» Different types of psychotherapy: • Cognitive behavioral therapy

» Treatment outcome: severity of depression after psychotherapy
What are the main findings?
» Any type of psychotherapy helped better than no psychotherapy.The effect size Cohen's d across the 198 studies was d = -0.62 to d = -0.92,which are moderate to large differences between adults with depression not receiving psychotherapy and those who received psychotherapy.
» When comparing each of two types of psychotherapy with each other, one type of psychotherapy helped significantly better than another.Cohen's d here was d = -0.01 to d = -0.29.These are practically non-significant differences between types of psychotherapy.Only interpersonal psychotherapy helped slightly better than nondirective supportive therapy.Cohen's d here was d = -0.30.This is a small difference between these two types of therapy.
»The researchers found that the characteristics of the adults studied did not affect how well psychotherapy helped.Somer's d here was d = -0.08,which is a practically insignificant impact of such characteristics on treatment success.

What do the results mean in everyday life?
Every type of psychotherapy studied in this review can be recommended for the treatment of depression in adults.Compared with no treatment, psychotherapy is more likely to help reduce the severity of depression.
What else needs to be considered?

Bias in results due to limited publication of studies
»What is the issue?Unambiguous research results are easier to publish than ambiguous results.This is problematic for reviews because they cannot include these unpublished, inconclusive results.
»What does this mean for this review?The researchers of this review found evidence of such unpublished studies with inconclusive results.They therefore assume that the treatment success of individual psychotherapies is actually smaller than calculated in their review.

Who funded the study?
The research was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation.This is a foundation that funds research.

Were there any conflicts of interest?
The researchers report in their review paper that they have the following conflicts of interest: One researcher is a member of a steering group for pharmaceutical industry studies.Some of the researchers belong to a university research institution (CTU Bern).This institution supports studies of the pharmaceutical industry.

Good to know
This KLARtext summarizes a review paper, called a meta-analysis.Researchers who do a meta-analysis first look for the results of all the studies on a particular question (for example."How well does a particular psychotherapy help?").Then they summarize the results of those studies.

Why do this? A meta-analysis has two goals:
1.The meta-analysis gives an overview of all the studies that have already investigated that question.It describes who has already done research on a question (for example, who has already studied a particular type of psychotherapy).It also states the results of each study (for example, whether psychotherapy helped and how well it helped).
2. Meta-analysis also provides a value that summarizes the results of all the studies.To do this, researchers take the individual results of all the studies they found and calculate an overall result.It is important here that the studies found on a topic are fairly similar.If the studies differ greatly, the calculated overall result of the meta-analysis becomes inaccurate.The calculated overall result provides the researchers with the answer to the question posed at the beginning (for example, "Across all studies, psychotherapy helps very well.").This overall result has much more power than the results of the individual studies.

What was the goal of the review?
Background: Psychotherapy can help people with mental illness.Research has already found this out.There are different types of psychotherapies.For adults with mild to moderate depression, they may help differently.

Research question:
With their review, the researchers wanted to find out: What types of psychotherapies help adults with mild to moderate depression?

Key message of the review
All of the types of psychotherapies studied help adults with depression similarly well.They all help better than not doing psychotherapy at all.
How did the researchers proceed in the review?
What studies did the researchers look for in the review?
The researchers looked for studies that compared types of psychotherapy with each other or with no psychotherapy.The studies should look at how well each psychotherapy helps adults with depression.
What studies did the researchers find for the review?
The researchers found a total of 198 studies from 1975 to 2012 whose results they combined into a meta-analysis.In total, these add up to results from 15,118 adults with depression.

What did the researchers do in the review?
In each of the 198 studies, the researchers examined the effectiveness of various psychotherapies for adults with depression.They also looked at whether the treatment success of each type of psychotherapy was related to other characteristics of the people with depression.
What did the researchers examine in the review?
»Different types of psychotherapy: • Cognitive behavioral therapy

What are the main findings?
»Any type of psychotherapy helped better than no psychotherapy.The effect size Cohen's d across the 198 studies was -0.62 to -0.92, which are moderate to large differences between adults with depression not receiving psychotherapy and those who received psychotherapy.Converted to 100 people, this means: Between 73 and 82 of 100 adults were less depressed after psychotherapy than the average of those without psychotherapy.
»When comparing each of two types of psychotherapy with each other, one type of psychotherapy helped significantly better than another.The remaining differences in treatment success between types of psychotherapy were not significant.Only interpersonal psychotherapy helped slightly better than nondirective supportive therapy.Cohen's d here was -0.30.This is a small difference between these two types of therapy.Converted to 100 people, this means 61 out of 100 adults with depression in Interpersonal Psychotherapy had higher treatment success than the average in Non-Directive Supportive Therapy.
»The researchers found that the characteristics of the adults studied did not affect how well psychotherapy helped.The impact of such characteristics on treatment success was not significant.

How can the results be evaluated?
What do the results tell us?
In the review, differences in treatment success were observed between two types of psychotherapy and between psychotherapy and no psychotherapy.Because of the types of studies that were included, it can be said with a high degree of certainty that the type of psychotherapy is also the cause of treatment success for adults with depression.

Are the results biased by limited publication of studies?
» What is the issue?Clear research results are easier to publish than ambiguous results.This is problematic for review papers.Namely, they cannot take unpublished results into account.
» What does this mean for this review?The researchers found evidence of such bias.They made an effort to account for these biases.They therefore assume that the treatment success of psychotherapies is actually smaller than calculated in their review.

How reliable are the results?
The researchers caution: few studies were found on the treatment success of some types of therapy.The associated statements should therefore be viewed with caution.They also point out that the extent of treatment success depended on characteristics of the included studies.These include, for example, how treatment success was measured and how the studies were conducted.

What everyday relevance do the researchers see in the review?
Each type of psychotherapy studied in this review can be recommended for treating depression in adults.If you or someone close to you is affected by depression, the decision to use a particular psychotherapy should be made only after consulting with professionals.

What else should be noted?
Who funded the review?
The preparation of the review was funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation.This is a foundation that funds research.

Do the researchers report their own conflicts of interest in the review?
The researchers report that they have the following conflicts of interest: One researcher is a member of a steering group for studies of the pharmaceutical industry.Some of the researchers belong to a university research institution (CTU Bern).This institution supports studies of the pharmaceutical industry.

Disclaimer of the KLARtext authors
As KLARtext authors, we summarize an existing review.We did not conduct this review ourselves.
We have translated the statements of the authors of the review into generally understandable language.We do not check whether these statements are scientifically correct.We do not check how well the review was conducted.We also do not check whether the results of the review are already outdated.
Link to the review: [link has been removed for study purposes].

Eine Übersichtsarbeit
Diese Zusammenfassung bezieht sich auf die Übersichtsarbeit mit dem Titel "The Association Between Resilience and Mental Health in the Somatically Ill" von Francesca Färber und Jenny Rosendahl aus dem Jahr 2018.Die Forschenden arbeiten an der Universität Jena.

How are adjustment to difficult circumstances and psychological well-being related in people with physical illness?
A review This summary refers to the 2018 review paper titled "The Association Between Resilience and Mental Health in the Somatically Ill" by Francesca Färber and Jenny Rosendahl, researchers at the University of Jena, Germany.

Good to know
The review presented to you as a summary today is a meta-analysis.Researchers who do a meta-analysis first look for the results of all the studies on a particular question (for example, "How well does a particular psychotherapy help?").Then they summarize the results of those studies.

Why do this? A meta-analysis has two goals:
1.The meta-analysis gives an overview of all the studies that have already investigated that question.It describes who has already done research on a question (for example, who has already studied a particular type of psychotherapy).It also states the results of each study (for example, whether psychotherapy helped and how well it helped).
2. A Meta-analysis also provides a value that summarizes the results of all the studies.To do this, researchers take the individual results of all the studies they found and calculate an overall result.It is important here that the studies found on a topic are fairly similar.If the studies differ greatly, the calculated overall result of the meta-analysis becomes inaccurate.The calculated overall result provides the researchers with the answer to the question posed at the beginning (for example, "Across all studies, psychotherapy helps very well.").This overall result has much more power than the results of the individual studies.

What was the goal of the review?
Background: A physical illness is often experienced as stressful.How burdensome such an illness is for mental well-being also depends on a person's characteristics.These traits encompass the ability to adapt effectively in challenging situations.

Research question:
With their review, the researchers wanted to find out: How are individual adaptation to difficult circumstances and psychological well-being related in people with physical illness?
Färber and Rosendahl, New Guideline without CAMA Elements   Wie lassen sich die Ergebnisse bewerten?

Gut zu wissen
Was sagen die Ergebnisse aus?

Good to know
This KLARtext summarizes a review, called a meta-analysis.Researchers who do a metaanalysis first look for the results of all the studies on a particular question (for example, "How well does a particular psychotherapy help?").Then they summarize the results of those studies.
Why do this?A meta-analysis has two goals: 1.The meta-analysis gives an overview of all the studies that have already investigated that question.It describes who has already done research on a question (for example, who has already studied a particular type of psychotherapy).It also states the results of each study (for example, whether psychotherapy helped and how well it helped).
2. The meta-analysis also provides a value that summarizes the results of all studies.To do this, the researchers take the individual results of all the studies found and calculate an overall result from them.It is important here that the studies found on a topic are fairly similar.If the studies differ greatly, the calculated overall result of the meta-analysis becomes inaccurate.The calculated overall result provides the researchers with the answer to the question posed at the beginning (for example, "Across all studies, psychotherapy helps very well.").This overall result has much more power than the results of the individual studies.

What was the aim of the review?
Background: A physical illness is often experienced as stressful.How stressful such an illness is for mental well-being also depends on a person's characteristics.These traits encompass the ability to adapt effectively in challenging situations.

Research question:
With their review, the researchers wanted to find out: How are individual adaptation to difficult circumstances and psychological well-being related in people with physical

Good to know
The review on which the living evidence in PsychOpen CAMA is based is a meta-analysis.
Researchers who do a meta-analysis first look for the results of all the studies on a particular question (for example, "How well does a particular psychotherapy help?").Then they summarize the results of those studies.

Why do this? A meta-analysis has two goals:
1. Meta-analysis provides an overview of all the studies that have already investigated this question.It describes who has already done research on a question (for example, who has already studied a particular type of psychotherapy).It also states the results of each study(for example, whether psychotherapy helped and how well it helped).
2. Meta-analysis also provides a value that summarizes the results of all the studies.To do this, researchers take the individual results of all the studies they found and calculate an overall result.It is important here that the studies found on a topic are fairly similar.If the studies are very different, the calculated overall result of the meta-analysis will be inaccurate.The calculated overall result provides the researchers with the answer to the question posed at the beginning (for example, "Across all studies, psychotherapy helps very well.").This overall result has much more power than the results of the individual studies.

Do the researchers report their own conflicts of interest in the review?
The researchers report in the review on which the living evidence is based that they have no conflicts of interest.

Disclaimer of the KLARtext authors
As KLARtext authors, we summarize an existing review and the associated living evidence.We did not conduct this review ourselves.We have translated the statements of the authors of the review into generally understandable language.We also report the results from PsychOpen CAMA.We do not verify whether these statements and the results are scientifically correct.We do not review how well the review was conducted.
Link to living evidence in PsychOpen CAMA: [link has been removed for study purposes].
Link to the review on which the living evidence is based: [link has been removed for study purposes]
Übersichtsarbeit: [Link wurde zu Studienzwecken entfernt] results from psychology for the public.This KLARtext was written by staff of the Leibniz Institute of Psychology.The KLARtext summarizes the review paper titled "The Association Between Resilience and Mental Health in the Somatically Ill."The review paper was published in 2018.It was written by researchers Francesca Färber and Jenny Rosendahl of the University of Jena.

Berichten die Forschenden in der Übersichtsarbeit eigene Interessenkonflikte? Die
KLARtexts prepare research results from psychology for the public.This KLARtext was written by staff of the Leibniz Institute of Psychology.The KLARtext summarizes the review paper titled "Comparative Efficacy of Seven Psychotherapeutic Interventions for Patients with Depression: A Network Meta-Analysis."The review paper was published in 2013.It was written by Jürgen Barth and seven other researchers from the University of Bern and two other institutes.
» Was

Link zur Übersichtsarbeit, auf der die lebendige Evidenz beruht: [Link wurde zu Studienzwecken entfernt] How are adaptation to challenging circumstances and psychological well-being related in people with physical illness?
Living Evidence in PsychOpen CAMA KLARtexts prepare research findings in psychology for the public.This KLARtext was written by staff of the Leibniz Institute of Psychology.The KLARtext is based on living evidence from the PsychOpen CAMA database of the Leibniz Institute for Psychology as of 07.06.2022."Living evidence" here means that new research results can be continuously added to the meta-analysis (see "Good to know" below).The overall result of the meta-analysis can thus always be adapted to the latest state of research.The basis for the living evidence presented here is the review paper titled "The Association Between Resilience and Mental Health in the Somatically Ill."This review paper was published in 2018.It was written by researchers Francesca Färber and Jenny Rosendahl of the University of Jena.